Quote
The thickening ice in parts on Antarctica means the continent isn’t contributing to rising sea levels, contrary to the conclusion of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 study. Rather, it is taking water out of the ocean at the rate of a quarter of a millimeter per year, said H. Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at the University of Maryland and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who led the study.
But that little bit of good news doesn’t dent the case for global warming, he said. Climate-change deniers “should not take comfort in this, and they should not use this as proof that their denials are correct.â€
More important is the broader weather picture, including changes in the Northern Hemisphere and changes in weather patterns, including how the jet stream flows, he said.
The climate is warming much faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world, and that is a big reason sea levels are rising, he said. Antarctica isn’t subject to the same weather as the Arctic; most of it remains below freezing in the summer, so there is very little melting of the ice.
Antarctica’s sea ice continues to grow by about 1% every decade, unchanged from findings published in 2002. The Arctic sea ice is now shrinking 1% to 2% a year, rather than shrinking 2% to 3% per decade, as was estimated around 2000.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/antarctica-isnt-melting----a-new-study-finds-its-actually-gaining-ice-2015-11-02
Non-linear models ... are not linear. What is good is bad and what is bad as good, and it will change from year to year and place to place. So there is a difference between weather (local) and climate (regional or global). This is hard for people to grasp. Nevertheless, most glaciers in the N Hemisphere are melting steadily. I would suspect, dynamically, that the two poles are the most unstable part of the system, and the equator the most stable. So we should expect polar phenomenon to be more confusing.
Show of hands among climate change deniers who don't realize the Arctic and Antarctic aren't the same things...
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 08:04:22 AM
Show of hands among climate change deniers who don't realize the Arctic and Antarctic aren't the same things...
:lol:
From a recent poll:
QuoteYoung adults in the United States fail to understand the world and their place in it, according to a survey-based report on geographic literacy released today.
Take Iraq, for example. Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel.
Nine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.
And 54 percent were unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa.
Remember the December 2004 tsunami and the widespread images of devastation in Indonesia?
Three-quarters of respondents failed to find that country on a map. And three-quarters were unaware that a majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim, making it the largest Muslim country in the world.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html
I think you're underestimating the population.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AM
Take Iraq, for example. Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel.
It's right down the street, parked in that douchebag Brian's driveway.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/zbu3r.jpg)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AMNine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.
My grandma has a nice Afghanistan on the back of the couch.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2llkpj8.jpg)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AMAnd 54 percent were unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa.
My mom drives a Sudan.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AMRemember the December 2004 tsunami and the widespread images of devastation in Indonesia?
Three-quarters of respondents failed to find that country on a map.
They probably said Netherlands Indies, since Indonesia didn't exist until 1945 and schools are so underfunded it would be a surprise to find many globes in the Bible belt after that time period.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 08:39:24 AM
since Indonesia didn't exist until 1945 and schools are so underfunded it would be a surprise to find many globes in the Bible belt after that time period.
I'd be surprised to find new globes in the schools around here. They went paperless several years ago. No books. No pens and pencils. Just a school system issued Internet connected laptop for every student.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AM
:lol:
From a recent poll:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html
In COLLEGE, I met a third year transfer student from "The BrOnxxx" who coundn't find New York State on a map of the US! We were upstate, so if she ever had to find her own way home she would have been lost. America would be a much better place if we could just lose all such ignoramuses permanently - it would be so much more feasible than attempting to educate them.
QuoteBut that little bit of good news doesn’t dent the case for global warming, he said. Climate-change deniers “should not take comfort in this, and they should not use this as proof that their denials are correct.â€
But you know they will anyway. Hell, they take weather as proof against climate change. They'll eat this stuff up and ignore or downplay the Arctic Circle's comparatively worse situation.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 03, 2015, 08:31:53 AMFrom a recent poll:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html
Since we're on this tangent anyway, I might as well chip in.
I was talking about the education system with a coworker. She believes that schools should focus on preparing for a career, so you should only be taught things vital to that - balancing a checkbook, writing resumes, etc. While I don't completely disagree, I believe in more of a liberal education - a broad knowledge base and cultivation of a variety of skills - after all, you don't know exactly what fields the kids are going to end up in and people change careers all the time. I asked her if she'd be against teaching history or geography. She flatly responded that she would and that they "weren't relevant". How the hell is geography not relevant? It affects everything! You can't understand world events without knowing basic geography. It's the difference between hearing about war in Georgia and being angry with South Carolina or being angry with Russia. I just don't understand how ignorance of basic facts could possibly be a good thing.
Most people don't even realize that there is a land mass under the South Pole and no land under the North Pole.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 03, 2015, 07:08:52 PM
Most people don't even realize that there is a land mass under the South Pole and no land under the North Pole.
So wait, you're telling me there's no corresponding Arctica to go along with Antarctica?
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 03, 2015, 03:05:22 PM
Since we're on this tangent anyway, I might as well chip in.
I was talking about the education system with a coworker. She believes that schools should focus on preparing for a career, so you should only be taught things vital to that - balancing a checkbook, writing resumes, etc. While I don't completely disagree, I believe in more of a liberal education - a broad knowledge base and cultivation of a variety of skills - after all, you don't know exactly what fields the kids are going to end up in and people change careers all the time. I asked her if she'd be against teaching history or geography. She flatly responded that she would and that they "weren't relevant". How the hell is geography not relevant? It affects everything! You can't understand world events without knowing basic geography. It's the difference between hearing about war in Georgia and being angry with South Carolina or being angry with Russia. I just don't understand how ignorance of basic facts could possibly be a good thing.
Your coworker believes the only reason for "little people" to exist, is so that she doesn't have to mow her own lawn, but can have a Mexican do it for her. Same thing with brainless functionaries in some office. No doubt she sees herself as a manager of such losers.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 08:12:46 PM
So wait, you're telling me there's no corresponding Arctica to go along with Antarctica?
Antarctica from ante-Arctica, meaning opposite of Arctica: so if one has land underneath, the other shouldn't have... ok, that's not why it's called Antarctica -originally it was meant at opposite pole, but that's my take, and I'm staying with it... :lol:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 04, 2015, 04:44:09 PM
Antarctica from ante-Arctica, meaning opposite of Arctica: so if one has land underneath, the other shouldn't have... ok, that's not why it's called Antarctica -originally it was meant at opposite pole, but that's my take, and I'm staying with it... :lol:
It sounds funny, but I vividly remember asking the question in whatever grade it is that you learn about continents why the South Pole (Antarctica) was considered a continent but the North Pole wasn't. And I went to public school in Texas to boot, and I got a straight answer that didn't include Jesus, America, or Western imperialism but rather the simple fact that there was land under them there ice. I feel like it was also around the time that Waterworld came out.
I read the thing about the Antarctic yesterday. While I was surprised, it is not out of line with other predictions about localized changes that are a part of global warming. I remember hearing someone on NPR saying they thought global warming was a misleading term, and a better name would be global meteorological chaos. If everything warmed 2 degrees, and that was the end of it, it wouldn't seem like a big deal. Unfortunately, that's not the end of it. I talked with an oceanographer from Canada one time, who believed changes in ocean currents will be the big problem caused by that 2 degrees.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2015, 12:20:56 PM
I read the thing about the Antarctic yesterday. While I was surprised, it is not out of line with other predictions about localized changes that are a part of global warming. I remember hearing someone on NPR saying they thought global warming was a misleading term, and a better name would be global meteorological chaos. If everything warmed 2 degrees, and that was the end of it, it wouldn't seem like a big deal. Unfortunately, that's not the end of it. I talked with an oceanographer from Canada one time, who believed changes in ocean currents will be the big problem caused by that 2 degrees.
Ocean currents are important (El Ninyo and La Ninya) ... and the Gulf Stream determines N Hemisphere ice ages. Ultimately, if environmental temperature rises too high, then the core temperature of animals will be too high, like 110 degrees, and all the animals die (who are not kept indoors in air conditioning). That would pretty much end it all. People are struggling to survive outside in 115 degree weather ... and for good reason. If that was the normal temperature 24x7 ... we would not survive outside.
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2015, 12:20:56 PM
I read the thing about the Antarctic yesterday. While I was surprised, it is not out of line with other predictions about localized changes that are a part of global warming. I remember hearing someone on NPR saying they thought global warming was a misleading term, and a better name would be global meteorological chaos. If everything warmed 2 degrees, and that was the end of it, it wouldn't seem like a big deal. Unfortunately, that's not the end of it. I talked with an oceanographer from Canada one time, who believed changes in ocean currents will be the big problem caused by that 2 degrees.
That's exactly the problem with the phrase. The long term trend is toward warming, but the near term effects are instability in the natural cycles that moderate planetary weather -- so summers are hotter, winters are colder, hurricanes are stronger, etc. The more correct phrase is anthropogenic climate change.
And you're right about the ocean currents. It's theorized that if the Gulf Stream shuts down, that may be the trigger of a new ice age -- not much Toronto, Chicago and New York (to say nothing of London, Paris, all of Scandinavia, and vast tracts of Russia) can do about an advancing mile-thick sheet of ice.
Quote from: trdsf on November 22, 2015, 06:15:30 PM
That's exactly the problem with the phrase. The long term trend is toward warming, but the near term effects are instability in the natural cycles that moderate planetary weather -- so summers are hotter, winters are colder, hurricanes are stronger, etc. The more correct phrase is anthropogenic climate change.
And you're right about the ocean currents. It's theorized that if the Gulf Stream shuts down, that may be the trigger of a new ice age -- not much Toronto, Chicago and New York (to say nothing of London, Paris, all of Scandinavia, and vast tracts of Russia) can do about an advancing mile-thick sheet of ice.
Don't worry, investment banks will sell derivative financial instruments on all this, and make lots of money ;-)